CED Contracts IX.2.(f), Contracts | IX Interpretation of Contract | 2 Ambiguity...

CED Contracts IX.2.(f)

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest
Contracts
IX Interpretation of Contract
2 Ambiguity
(f) Construction Against Stipulator Contra Proferentem
For print citation information and the currency of the title, please click here.
IX.2.(f)
See Canadian Abridgment: CON.VII.4.b Contracts Construction and interpretation Resolving ambiguities Contra
proferentem
582 Where a contractual provision is sufficiently ambiguous that it is reasonably capable of more than one construction, it
will be construed against the party responsible for drafting and tendering the contract (rather than the person in whose favour
the stipulation was made)1 and in favour of the opposite party (contra proferentem). 2 Contra proferentem operates to protect
one party to a contract from deviously ambiguous or confusing drafting on the part of the other party, 3 particularly where
there is an inequality of bargaining power between the parties, 4 or where the clause being construed creates an exemption,
exclusion, or liability.5 A third party, however, has no basis at all for relying upon contra proferentem.6
583 If, however, there is reasonable certainty as to the proper meaning of a provision, even though some difficulty in
construction may exist, the contra proferentum rule should not be applied.7 Contra proferentum is a weak canon of
construction, to be applied last (if at all), and only when all other rules have failed. 8 The court must not search for or create an
ambiguity, and then use the contra proferentem rule. 9 In particular, a court must not interpret a contract contra proferentem
where the supposedly conflicting clauses can be reconciled. 10 The proper interpretation of the contract must be that existing at
the time the contract was made.11 The contra proferentem rule is not applicable if both parties understand the meaning of an
ambiguous provision before making the contract.12
584 The contra proferentum rule applies to complicated contracts,13 deeds,14 guarantees and other surety clauses,15 and
standardized business documents,16 since care in draftsmanship may be expected in such cases. 17 However, the rule does not
extend to informal contracts such as contracts formed from correspondence, 18 nor to printed forms which have been
substantially amended bilaterally before execution,19 nor to negotiated contracts with variations reflecting the wishes of the
nominally weaker party.20 The rule applies to exemption and exclusion or limitation clauses, 21 and with particular force to
exceptions to or reservations from the primary covenants of deeds.22
585 The contra proferentem rule is inapplicable to a contract whose terms are prescribed by or in accordance with
government regulation.23 In the case of a private Act embodying or validating a contract, the statutory contract is subject to
the contra proferentem principle as an aspect of normal contractual interpretation, except that the agreement is to be
interpreted as a statute would be, insofar as the rights of the general public are concerned. 24
586 If there are no clear alternative interpretations available, the contract or part of it may simply have to be declared void 25
or otherwise unenforceable26 by reason of uncertainty. If, however, reasonable alternatives are available, then the meaning
least favourable to the stipulator may be chosen, 27 or, possibly, the opposite party may be given an election between the
possible interpretations.28
Footnotes
1

Ironside v. Smith (1998), 1998 CarswellAlta 1045 (Alta. C.A.) (contra proferentem not to be used to construe agreement against
drafter unless clear that non-drafting party had no meaningful opportunity to participate in negotiation of instrument); Brand
Solutions by Promotion Solutions Inc. v. Elsey (2015), 2015 CarswellOnt 6551 (Ont. S.C.J.) (contra proferentem principle having
little application as parties had access to legal advice and opportunity to negotiate); Johns Southward Glazier Walton & Margetts
v. Rotto (2015), 2015 CarswellBC 910 (B.C. S.C.) (court finding there was no ambiguity in letter agreements that would give rise
to application of contra preferentem rule); Pacific Vending Ltd. v. Fraser Valley Playgrounds Inc. (2015), 2015 CarswellBC 2681
(B.C. Prov. Ct.) (termination clause in contract ambiguously written; defendant consequently entitled to interpretation that was
most favourable to it); 2249778 Ontario Inc. v. Smith (2014), 2014 CarswellOnt 15703 (Ont. C.A.) (court reaffirming contra
proferentem principle in cases of ambiguity); see also Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin (1996), 1996 CarswellOnt 3941
(S.C.C.) (ambiguous document to be construed against drafter); Phillips v. 707739 Alberta Ltd. (2000), 2000 CarswellAlta 147
(Alta. Q.B.) (ambiguous clause in agreement respecting liability for legal fees construed in favour of purchaser as drafted by
vendor).

Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.

CED Contracts IX.2.(f), Contracts | IX Interpretation of Contract | 2 Ambiguity...

Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin (1996), 1996 CarswellOnt 3941 (S.C.C.) (terms of guarantee unambiguous, but if so, contra
proferentem applicable); Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. c. Mutual Boiler & Machinery Insurance Co. (1979), 1979
CarswellQue 157 (S.C.C.) (court interpreting ambiguous exclusion clauses in policy to promote true intention of parties and
sensible commercial result, and to avoid supporting construction either enabling insurer to pocket premium without risk, or
insured to achieve recovery unable to be sensibly sought or anticipated at time of contract); Hillis Oil & Sales Ltd. v. Wynns
Canada Ltd. (1986), 1986 CarswellNS 147 (S.C.C.) (termination provisions in distributorship contract); Phillips v. 707739
Alberta Ltd. (2000), 2000 CarswellAlta 147 (Alta. Q.B.) (liability for legal fees on share sale); OReillys Irish Bar Inc. v. 10385
Nfld. Ltd. (2006), 2006 CarswellNfld 75 (N.L. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2006), 2006 CarswellNfld 243 (S.C.C.) (clause in
lease providing for sale of property at end of lease); Arnoldin Construction & Forms Ltd. v. Alta Surety Co. (1995), 1995
CarswellNS 31 (N.S. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1995), 193 N.R. 320 (note) (S.C.C.) (pay when paid clause in construction
contract); Arthur Andersen Inc. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (1994), 1994 CarswellOnt 233 (Ont. C.A.); additional reasons at
(1994), 1994 CarswellOnt 4778 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1994), 178 N.R. 397 (note) (S.C.C.); Cote v. JDR
Coachworks & Fabrication (2005), 2005 CarswellOnt 961 (Ont. S.C.J.) (marketing services agreement not limited to coaches);
Dancap Private Equity Inc. v. Oaktown Collision Inc. (2005), 2005 CarswellOnt 4916 (Ont. S.C.J.) (ambiguous terms financing
and transaction interpreted in reference to whole financing deal including involvement of another party who subsequently
withdrew; term respecting payment of commitment fee unambiguous); Charda Holdings Ltd. v. R. (1988), 1988 CarswellNat 833
(Fed. T.D.) (charter contract for salmon tagging operations; unclear if term guaranteeing minimum period of engagement of
plaintiff or minimum requirement in favour of defendant); Alftar Construction Inc. v. R. (1980), 1980 CarswellNat 45 (Fed. T.D.).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1998), 1998 CarswellNat 1061 (S.C.C.); Tri-Level Claims Consultants Ltd. v. Fryer (2003),
2003 CarswellOnt 5246 (Ont. S.C.J.) (written retainer agreement concerning fees, ambiguous); Ryan v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of
Canada (2005), 2005 CarswellNS 27 (N.S. C.A.).

Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyds London v. Scalera (2000), 2000 CarswellBC 885 (S.C.C.) (since insurance contracts generally
adhesionary, standard practice to construe ambiguities against insurer, and to construe coverage broadly and exclusions narrowly;
courts always to be alert to unequal bargaining power at work in insurance contracts, and interpret policies accordingly); Manulife
Bank of Canada v. Conlin (1996), 1996 CarswellOnt 3941 (S.C.C.) (guarantee drafted by bank); Ironside v. Smith (1998), 1998
CarswellAlta 1045 (Alta. C.A.) (contra proferentem applicable only where non-drafting party clearly having no meaningful
opportunity to participate in drafting; as agreement to find buyers for shares redrafted, no evidence parties precluded from further
negotiations); Strench v. Canem Systems Ltd. (2005), 2005 CarswellBC 2981 (B.C. S.C.) (Canadian courts reluctant to enforce
employment termination clauses with short notice periods; ambiguous termination clause construed against drafter); Ayerswood
Development Corp. v. Hydro One Networks Inc. (2004), 2004 CarswellOnt 5089 (Ont. S.C.J.); affirmed (2005), 2005 CarswellOnt
6907 (Ont. C.A.) (standard form program guide drafted by Ontario Hydro); Murray v. Xerox Corp. (2004), 2004 CarswellOnt
2234 (Ont. S.C.J.); affirmed (2005), 2005 CarswellOnt 3283 (Ont. C.A.) (employment incentive plan involving shares issuance
form of contract of adhesion; employee not having opportunity to negotiate agreement and, notwithstanding voluntary nature of
grant, not gift-like); Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising Corp. (2003), 2003 CarswellOnt 2038 (Ont. C.A.) (enforcing
exclusion clause in adhesive franchise contract not fair or reasonable); Wee Me Inc. v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc. (2005), 2005
CarswellOnt 3777 (Ont. S.C.J.) (standard form vendor agreement); Aamco Transmissions Inc. v. Kunz (1991), 1991 CarswellSask
447 (Sask. C.A.) (franchise agreement); Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. 1248913 Ontario Ltd. (2001), 2001 CarswellOnt 2544
(Ont. S.C.J.); additional reasons at (2002), 2002 CarswellOnt 279 (Ont. S.C.J.) (contra proferentum applicable to standard form
guarantee; also subject to strict construction as guarantor favoured creditor, especially when accommodation surety); see also J.R.
McLean & Associates Ltd. v. Glenrobin Place Developments Ltd. Partnership (1994), 1994 CarswellBC 2204 (B.C. S.C.)
(vendors solicitor drafting purchase and sale agreement; realtors could have changed wording respecting commission); Fournier
v. Fournier (2006), 2006 CarswellNB 584 (N.B. Q.B.) (domestic contract; contra proferentum inapplicable in circumstances
where equality of bargaining positions, opportunity to contribute to drafting terms of the contract, independent legal advice, and
voluntary execution of contract); Dynamex Canada Inc. v. Miller (1998), 1998 CarswellNfld 88 (Nfld. C.A.) (even giving full
recognition to notion that adhesion contracts to be construed strictly against their maker where two equally plausible
interpretations possible, only one reasonable construction of language of solicitation restriction; contra proferentum rule not
applicable); 473807 Ontario Ltd. v. TDL Group Ltd. (2006), 2006 CarswellOnt 4596 (Ont. C.A.) (although tenant using standard
form postponement and non-disturbance agreement, which mortgagee signed, contra proferentum not playing role in
interpreting agreement; straightforward commercial transaction where both sides represented by experienced commercial lawyers;
although tenant likely having more bargaining power, mortgagee not powerless to negotiate changes); General Motors
Acceptance Corp. of Canada v. Spadafora (2000), 2000 CarswellOnt 2057 (Ont. S.C.J.) (clause in standard form guarantee not
ambiguous or equivocal and sufficient to contract out of common law rule regarding release of all guarantors).

Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin (1996), 1996 CarswellOnt 3941 (S.C.C.) (contra proferentum applying to guarantee or
surety clauses); TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. Northern & Central Gas Corp. (1981), 1981 CarswellOnt 732 (Ont. H.C.);
affirmed (1983), 1983 CarswellOnt 1430 (Ont. C.A.); Cathcart Inspection Services Ltd. v. Purolator Courier Ltd. (1981), 1981
CarswellOnt 806 (Ont. H.C.); affirmed (1982), 1981 CarswellOnt 664 (Ont. C.A.); see also 621-630.

Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.

CED Contracts IX.2.(f), Contracts | IX Interpretation of Contract | 2 Ambiguity...

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1998), 1998 CarswellNat 1061 (S.C.C.).

Scanlon v. Castlepoint Development Corp. (1992), 1992 CarswellOnt 633 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1993), 157 N.R.
400 (note) (S.C.C.) (agreement for purchase and sale of new condominium; whether developer in anticipatory breach of
agreement by extending closing date in excess of two years); Paddon-Hughes Development Co. v. Pancontinental Oil Ltd. (1998),
1998 CarswellAlta 940 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1999), 243 N.R. 199 (note) (S.C.C.) (payment of delay rental in
lease); Delaney v. Cascade River Holidays Ltd. (1981), 1981 CarswellBC 383 (B.C. S.C.); affirmed (1983), 1983 CarswellBC 75
(B.C. C.A.) (contra proferentem rule not prevailing over clear and unambiguous language of exemption clause even in case of
fundamental breach); TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. Potter Station Power Ltd. Partnership (2003), 2003 CarswellOnt 1758 (Ont.
C.A.) (as indemnity agreement unambiguous, unnecessary to deal with contra proferentum); Arthur Andersen Inc. v. Toronto
Dominion Bank (1994), 1994 CarswellOnt 233 (Ont. C.A.); additional reasons at (1994), 1994 CarswellOnt 4778 (Ont. C.A.);
leave to appeal refused (1994), 178 N.R. 397 (note) (S.C.C.) (mirror account banking agreement unambiguously permitting
bank to deal with related corporate accounts on net balance basis); Toronto Dominion Bank v. Leigh Instruments Ltd. (Trustee of)
(1998), 1998 CarswellOnt 2565 (Ont. Gen. Div. [Commercial List]); affirmed on other grounds (1999), 1999 CarswellOnt 2812
(Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2000), 2000 CarswellOnt 2983 (S.C.C.) (comfort letter unambiguous).

Mtropolitaine, cie dassurance-vie c. Frenette (1992), 1992 CarswellQue 95 (S.C.C.) (court entitled to resort to contra
proferentum only where all rules of construction failing to discover true intention of parties); Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd.
c. Mutual Boiler & Machinery Insurance Co. (1979), 1979 CarswellQue 157 (S.C.C.); McDonald Crawford v. Morrow (2004),
2004 CarswellAlta 546 (Alta. C.A.) (dissenting in result); Aquafun Spas & Pools Ltd. v. Caron (1998), 1998 CarswellAlta 1535
(Alta. Prov. Ct.); 668840 Ontario Ltd. v. Acme Building & Construction Ltd. (1996), 1996 CarswellOnt 2931 (Ont. Gen. Div.);
Arnoldin Construction & Forms Ltd. v. Alta Surety Co. (1995), 1995 CarswellNS 31 (N.S. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1995),
193 N.R. 320 (note) (S.C.C.) (pay when paid clause in construction contract); Aquicon Construction Co. v. Vaughan (City)
(2003), 2003 CarswellOnt 2009 (Ont. S.C.J.) (whether bid compliant).

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. c. Mutual Boiler & Machinery Insurance Co. (1979), 1979 CarswellQue 157 (S.C.C.);
Cornish v. Accident Insurance Co. (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 453 (Eng. C.A.) (cited in Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. c. Mutual
Boiler & Machinery Insurance Co.); Arthur Andersen Inc. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (1994), 1994 CarswellOnt 233 (Ont. C.A.);
additional reasons at (1994), 1994 CarswellOnt 4778 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1994), 178 N.R. 397 (note) (S.C.C.)
(mirror account banking agreement unambiguously permitting bank to deal with related corporate accounts on net balance
basis; ambiguity must exist before rule applied); McDonald Crawford v. Morrow (2004), 2004 CarswellAlta 546 (Alta. C.A.), per
Ct J.A. (dissenting in result); Survey Aircraft Ltd. v. Stevenson (1962), 1962 CarswellBC 49 (S.C.C.).

10

McDonald Crawford v. Morrow (2004), 2004 CarswellAlta 546 (Alta. C.A.), per Ct J.A (dissenting in result); Barchak Estate v.
Anderson (1945), 1945 CarswellAlta 37 (Alta. C.A.); Pathak v. Royal Bank (1994), 1994 CarswellBC 1163 (B.C. S.C.); affirmed
(1996), 1996 CarswellBC 430 (B.C. C.A.) (ambiguity in bank form); Woodland v. BDO Dunwoody Ward Mallette Inc. (1995),
1995 CarswellOnt 2407 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Forbes v. Git (1921), 1921 CarswellNat 48 (Canada P.C.).

11

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. c. Mutual Boiler & Machinery Insurance Co. (1979), 1979 CarswellQue 157 (S.C.C.) (court to
search for interpretation which, from contract as whole, appearing to promote or advance parties true intent at time of entry into
contract); McDonald Crawford v. Morrow (2004), 2004 CarswellAlta 546 (Alta. C.A.) per Ct J.A. (dissenting in result)
(lawyers fee contract to be interpreted as of date made); Gilchrist v. Western Star Trucks Inc. (2000), 2000 CarswellBC 176 (B.C.
C.A.) (language must be read in context of surrounding circumstances prevalent at time of contracting).

12

Bot Construction Ltd. v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation & Communications) (1994), 1994 CarswellOnt 939 (Ont. Gen. Div.);
affirmed (1997), 1997 CarswellOnt 3250 (Ont. C.A.) (construction contract providing no payment for rock overbreak).

13

Pickford & Black Ltd. v. Canadian General Insurance Co. (1976), 1976 CarswellNS 28 (S.C.C.) (insurance contract); Union
Natural Gas Co. v. Chatham Gas Co. (1918), 1918 CarswellOnt 4 (S.C.C.) (gas distribution contract); Toronto (City) v.
Greenspoon Brothers Ltd. (1980), 1980 CarswellOnt 765 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1980), 34 N.R. 353n (S.C.C.)
(demolition control); McGhie v. Moose Jaw (City) (1997), 1997 CarswellSask 225 (Sask. Q.B.) (right to remove improvements
including dwelling); Brissette v. Westbury Life Insurance Co. (1992), 1992 CarswellOnt 999 (S.C.C.) (life insurance contract).

14

Owston v. Williams (1858), 1858 CarswellOnt 318 (U.C. Q.B.); Derby Holdings Ltd. v. Walcorp Investments Ltd. (1986), 1986
Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.

CED Contracts IX.2.(f), Contracts | IX Interpretation of Contract | 2 Ambiguity...

CarswellSask 607 (Sask. Q.B.) (rental formula in lease); Milliken v. Young (1928), 1928 CarswellSask 166 (Sask. C.A.); Bank of
Montreal v. Korico Enterprises Ltd. (2000), 2000 CarswellOnt 3065 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (2001), 2001
CarswellOnt 5618 (S.C.C.) (banks right to deal with security as it sees fit not justifying improvident sale).
15

Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin (1996), 1996 CarswellOnt 3941 (S.C.C.), at 11; First City Capital Ltd. v. Hall (1993), 1993
CarswellOnt 3849 (Ont. C.A.) (provisions of guarantee not amounting to waiver by guarantor of equitable principle that creditor
must protect security in order to claim under guarantee); Controls & Equipment Ltd. v. Ramco Contractors Ltd. (1999), 1999
CarswellNB 19 (N.B. C.A.) (limitation provision in bond working forfeiture, strictly construed); Norris v. Lloyds of London
(1998), 1998 CarswellNB 321 (N.B. C.A.); leave to appeal refused (1999), 249 N.R. 395 (note) (S.C.C.) (condition in insurance
policy working forfeiture).

16

Saint John Toyota Ltd. v. Levine (1992), 1992 CarswellNB 381 (N.B. Q.B.) (car warranty); Meng v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada
(1992), 1992 CarswellNB 20 (N.B. Q.B.) (car warranty); Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd. v. Harper (1991), 1991
CarswellAlta 243 (Alta. Q.B.) (standard form listing agreement equivocal on meaning of commission being payable if deal
completion failed for any reason; contra proferentem rule applying; defendants liable for commission only if failure resulting
from their conscious or deliberate act; clause inapplicable if failure resulting from unforeseen event); Gregorio v. Intrans-Corp.
(1994), 1994 CarswellOnt 237 (Ont. C.A.) (warranty ambiguous about excluding statutory conditions of sale); Caners v. Eli Lilly
Canada Inc. (1996), 1996 CarswellMan 121 (Man. C.A.); 32262 B.C. Ltd. v. Cryer Holdings Ltd. (1996), 1996 CarswellBC 1957
(B.C. S.C. [In Chambers]); additional reasons at (1996), 1996 CarswellBC 2329 (B.C. S.C. [In Chambers]) (lease of advertising
signs).

17

McCann v. Temiskaming Hotel Co. (1943), 1943 CarswellOnt 18 (Ont. C.A.) (contract drafted by corporate solicitor).

18

Watson v. Jamieson (1910), 1910 CarswellAlta 39 (Alta. C.A.).

19

United Income Properties Ltd. v. Alpha Laboratories Inc. (August 17, 1976) (Ont.); see also Napier v. Mendes (1999), 1999
CarswellOnt 3031 (Ont. C.A.) (document amended by both parties).

20

Canadian Crude Separators Ltd. v. Jacobson (1998), 1998 CarswellAlta 724 (Alta. Q.B.) (employee participating in drafting
employment contract); see also Showmart Management Ltd. v. 853436 Ontario Ltd. (1998), 1998 CarswellOnt 1730 (Ont. Gen.
Div.) (contra proferentum of limited application where commercial lease negotiated by legal counsel for parties of unequal
bargaining power.

21

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. (1997), 1997 CarswellNfld 207 (S.C.C.); Syncrude Canada Ltd.
v. Hunter Engineering Co. (1989), 1989 CarswellBC 37 (S.C.C.); Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising Corp. (2003), 2003
CarswellOnt 2038 (Ont. C.A.) (entire agreement clause in franchise agreement to be read contra proferentum; clear words
required for clause to apply); Canadian Salt Co. v. Irving Cedar (The) (2000), 2000 CarswellNat 2019 (Fed. T.D.) (contract for
hire of tug boat); see also 69.

22

Wright v. Jackson (1885), 10 O.R. 470 (Ont. C.A.); Woeller v. Orfus (1979), 1979 CarswellOnt 622 (Ont. H.C.); Milliken v. Young
(1928), 1928 CarswellSask 166 (Sask. C.A.).

23

Madill v. Chu (1976), 1976 CarswellOnt 419 (S.C.C.); Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Joseph (1989), 1989 CarswellBC
74 (B.C. C.A.); Goodwin v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1993), 1993 CarswellBC 252 (B.C. S.C.); Guest v. Royal &
SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada (2004), 2004 CarswellNfld 54 (N.L. C.A.); Rombeek v. Co-operators Insurance Assn.
(Guelph) (1977), 1977 CarswellOnt 798 (Ont. H.C.); Peter Cortesis Jeweller Ltd. v. Purolator Courier Ltd. (1981), 1981
CarswellOnt 701 (Ont. Co. Ct.).

24

Newfoundland (Attorney General) v. Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. (1983), 1983 CarswellNfld 185 (Nfld. T.D.); affirmed
(1985), 1985 CarswellNfld 257 (Nfld. C.A.); affirmed (1988), 1988 CarswellNfld 183 (S.C.C.).

25

Watson v. Jamieson (1910), 1910 CarswellAlta 39 (Alta. C.A.).

Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.

CED Contracts IX.2.(f), Contracts | IX Interpretation of Contract | 2 Ambiguity...

26

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. c. Mutual Boiler & Machinery Insurance Co. (1979), 1979 CarswellQue 157 (S.C.C.); Snyder
v. Hall (1991), 1991 CarswellBC 1691 (B.C. C.A.) (contra proferentem rule incapable of supplying essential missing terms);
Credit Protectors Ltd. v. MacKay (1940), 1940 CarswellSask 66 (Sask. Dist. Ct.).

27

Hillis Oil & Sales Ltd. v. Wynns Canada Ltd. (1986), 1986 CarswellNS 147 (S.C.C.) (distribution agreement); ConsolidatedBathurst Export Ltd. c. Mutual Boiler & Machinery Insurance Co. (1979), 1979 CarswellQue 157 (S.C.C.); Lear v. Klapstein
(2000), 2000 CarswellAlta 416 (Alta. Q.B.) (letter of agreement regarding exclusive agency); Royal Bank v. Dorscheid (1997),
1997 CarswellAlta 857 (Alta. Q.B.); affirmed (1999), 1999 CarswellAlta 84 (Alta. C.A.) (mortgage documents drawn by bank);
Taplow Ventures Ltd. v. Currie (2004), 2004 CarswellMan 475 (Man. Q.B.) (corporate or personal guarantee); Controls &
Equipment Ltd. v. Ramco Contractors Ltd. (1999), 1999 CarswellNB 19 (N.B. C.A.) (limitation provision in bond working
forfeiture); Arnoldin Construction & Forms Ltd. v. Alta Surety Co. (1995), 1995 CarswellNS 31 (N.S. C.A.); leave to appeal
refused (1995), 193 N.R. 320 (note) (S.C.C.) (pay when paid clause in construction contract); Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Atlantic Oil
Workers Union, Local 1 (2004), 2004 CarswellNS 410 (N.S. S.C.) (prohibited claims respecting release); Gaudio Estate v.
Gaudio (2005), 2005 CarswellOnt 1743 (Ont. S.C.J.) (separation agreement); Harris Steel Ltd. v. Seaboard Surety Co. of
Canada / Cie de garantie Seaboard du Canada (2003), 2003 CarswellOnt 1608 (Ont. S.C.J.) (payment conditions clause); T.
Eaton Co., Re (2001), 2001 CarswellOnt 2431 (Ont. S.C.J. [Commercial List]) (newsletter to employees of financially troubled
company promising further pension shares); O. (M.E.) v. M. (S.R.) (2003), 2003 CarswellAlta 576 (Alta. Q.B.); affirmed (2004),
2004 CarswellAlta 200 (Alta. C.A.) (term weekends in consent order); Brennan v. Brennan Educational Supply Ltd. (2004),
2004 CarswellSask 768 (Sask. Q.B.); reversed on other grounds (2006), 2006 CarswellSask 826 (Sask. C.A.) (structural defects
and repairs regarding lease)

28

McCann v. Temiskaming Hotel Co. (1943), 1943 CarswellOnt 18 (Ont. C.A.) (where instrument so ambiguous as to make it
doubtful whether was bill or note, holder entitled as against maker to treat as either at his election); but see Barthel v. Scotten
(1895), 1895 CarswellOnt 31 (S.C.C.); McDonald Crawford v. Morrow (2004), 2004 CarswellAlta 546 (Alta. C.A.).

End of Document

Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights
reserved.

Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.